Clock-Speeds of AMD FX-Series Microprocessors Show Up on the Web.

The delay of Advanced Micro Devices' highly-anticipated FX-series microprocessors by almost three months has clearly impacted not only AMD's plans and roadmap, but also the specs of the code-named Zambezi central processing units (CPUs). Based on the latest unofficial information, AMD tailored specifications of the upcoming chips so to clearly outperform competing offerings.

A new list of AMD FX "Zambezi" specifications on a slide that looks similar to those from AMD roadmaps has been published by Donanim Haber web-site. Presumable specifications imply that AMD FX B2 stepping can indeed achieve higher clock-speeds than previously available B0 and B1 with 95W or 125W thermal design power. Among other things, AMD also tweaked the Turbo Core 2.0 technology and now the "boosters" can lift base frequency by either 200MHz, 600MHz or even 900MHz depending on the model.

Previously it was believed that AMD's Turbo Core 2.0 technology of Bulldozer chips can increase clock-speed by [up to] 500MHz [depending on the workload] for all eight, six or four cores and by [up to] 1000MHz when only half of the cores are used. If the new specifications are correct, them AMD decided to vary "boosted" frequency depending on the model.

Although the variable clock-speed boost clearly makes CPU binning process more complex, it allows AMD to offer better performance where it is needed most and maximize the yield rate for the lower-end parts.

Preview

2.

There are apparent inconsistencies in this table between clock speeds, number of cores and TDP. For example, it's hard to explain how a 95W 4-core would top at 3.8 GHz, while a 95W 6-core could go up to 3.9 GHz.

Preview

Headroom for the cases where the lower spec & lower binned part has higher leakage? AMD have a history of doing this on the GPU side. See for instance the HD 5830 which vary wildly in power consumption and the worse specimens consume more power than the higher end parts at the same clock and voltage.

Preview

Preview

Your comment makes no sense. Intel has had the faster processor since July 2006 when Core 2 Duo arrived. AMD has been noncompetitive at price levels > $140 since 2006. So all these years we bought into the "money machine" based on bias?

As to you comment about waiting: You could have purchased a 2500k in Jan 2011. That CPU overclocked to 4.5-4.7ghz destroys a Phenom II X6, while also having the best power efficiency out of any overclocked processor in both idle and load modes.

It'll be even more funny if you waited for > 1 year for it and it won't even beat an overclocked 2500k which costs $220.

That's why it makes no sense in waiting and "hoping" it will match SB. If you use the waiting logic, you might as well wait for SB-E and Ivy Bridge and when you get there keep waiting for Haswell and Next Generation Bulldozer, etc. etc. etc.

Given how ridiculous the gap in performance is between SB and Phenom II (http://www.xbitlabs.com/a...7-2600k-990x_9.html#sect1), Bulldozer would need a 40-50% increase in performance per clock just to be competitive at those clock speeds in IPC. Given that they are putting an 8 core processor against a 2500k/2600k (4 core processors), it's almost guaranteed that the only chance BD has is in multi-threaded scenarios. But how many people use more than 4 threads?

Preview

Yeah,
actually I wanted something really energy efficient - I had some experience with AMD processors, especially Athlon X3 445 that I have at the office, but since waiting for wonderful processors made me tired I bought Pentium G620T.
Not only is it cooler (only 35W in stress, almost no noise at all), and faster compared to X3 445, it also consumes way less energy - 35W with GPU compared to AMD's 95W without GPU.
I mean 60W make a lot of difference, and even if X3 445 were as fast as G620T, and half the price, it would still be worse choice - because of both noise, and power consumption, that will give you higher electricity bills and in the end more expensive processor.
Same seems to be issue with new AMD processors - they will feature more cores per unit, or higher clocks to be competitive with Intel CPUs, but they will also consume more energy and in the end make them less attractive.

Preview

In my case I'm wating until 6-8 cores from Intel come to the market or Bulldozer has competitive performance.
I think AMD is targeting 8 cores with 4 double threaded cores from Intel. If they achieve that target it will be a good CPU. They can always add more modules and actually they will do so for the server market. If they can to the same on the desktop (TDP comes to mind, and overclockability too), why not? On multithreaded apps they would have the advantage of not having two threads fighting for CPU time on discrete operations and on less threaded apps they would get the same performance.

One thing I'm sure is that I wouldn't buy an LGA1155 because it seems it will be limited to 4 core only CPUs.

Preview

If you need more than 4 full fledged cores for some specific video rendering / video & audio encoding programs that actually run faster on 8-16 cores, the Bulldozer may be a better fit for you than a 2500k / 2600k. But then if you really need that many cores, you might as well get a 6/8-core Sandy Bridge E with 12-16 threads.

Most games now are just starting to take advantage of 3-4 cores, and for most other applications, there are almost no applications that benefit from more than 4 cores in the consumer market (this is why IPC was so critical in the last 5 years).

For most people who run Photoshop/office tasks/ and videogames, a 4-core SB is super fast, while trouncing anything AMD has in power consumption.

As a side note CPU performance isn't everything.
Actually I have 2 systems at home:

Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4ghz + HD4850
Core i7 860 @ 3.9ghz + 6970.

I put a 7200 rpm hard drive in the 860 system and a 60 GB SSD into the C2D system, and believe it or not the C2D feels WAY faster in every day tasks (internet, opening Excel/Word, running anti-virus while doing something in the background).

So frankly, for the average person a 4 core + SSD is WAY more than fast enough.

Preview

this 8cores will be sold for around 300$ so itsan other priceclas than sandybridge E and if the program is whritten well than the 8 extra HT treads would do nothing and best case scenario 25 to 30% increase so you can't compare them

Preview

AMD known for beat Intel #2 with better performance and better Price. But (most anticipated) BD'll have level price with 2600K and (maybe) better performance @ "some" application which I don't usually Use (Video rendering,etc). So...if there's no 2500k's price and performance competitor from AMD, I'll stick with it much longer.

Preview

Brand loyalty is overrated. Buying an AMD chip and declaring increased performance as a bonus is fanboyish.

Don't get me wrong, I am a staunch AMD supporter, but unless they get their act together and get the bulldozer to beat the sandy bridge in performance, and be competitive in price and thermal envelopes, they are not going to get my hard earned $$$, and my next machine (to be built within the next two months) is going to be an i5-2500K, just as my current machine is a 45nm core2duo.

Preview

Preview

9.

TDP is not the same as power consumption. TDP is the maximum theoretical power consumption if every transistor on the CPU was being used at the same time (which is actually impossible, because some parts of the CPU are mutually exclusive). I have some "65W TDP" Opterons that actually draw 45W under full load (3D rendering), and around 30W during normal use.